In this article he describes Graphic Design and designers to be reaching a point of redundancy. That we have segregated ourselves so far from the public to which we are trying to communicate that they no longer feel they need us or respond to our work or even respect what we do (the element of the marketing rhetoric that is bringing suspicion into society again). He blames the education systems of making us into a “high-art” community where everything we know about the qualities of Graphic Design is a self pomping myth, and that we are promoting this waste, consumerist culture we live in.

I, admittedly, like this thought process! And kind of agree to a certain degree, though I know how important it is to “learn the rules before you can break the rules”. Though his piece does leave me feeling “what’s the point the writing our essays then if it is promoting these myths of design that you are adamantly against and of which I am currently carrying out number 6!!?”

The main thing is he, and as the other articles seem to be highlighting in the Manifesto discourse, is wanting design to be applied to towards a more social, practical/ useful and ethical approach. It must open it’s doors to the public and try and engage them in these ethical debates, and become cultural design.

The worrying aspect is that this was written in 1975, and I keep thinking its touching on a very current issue. So if this was current back then why has it not seemed to change anything now? It’s rather baffling. Has the progression in technology thrown people’s idea of how things have progressed?

Would ‘dumbing-down’ design really make the changes in direction he is after?

I too agree that these design issues seem to reflect those of today rather than over 30 years ago! Papanek talks of this elitist platform designers regard themselves to be on, yet are distant from the audience they are reaching out to. If everyone is equipped to the designer way of thinking, what is stopping people from doing so?

This might be more of an issue in 1975, there are increasing amount of young adults who are self taught in design. But as you mentioned, maybe the development of technology and design software is masking what should be developed. As Papanek says, the education system should solve the real needs of real people, not fabricate briefs. The Royal Society of Arts do invite design students to enter their competition where all the briefs are related to social/cultural/economical issues, surely this will make the public feel that there is a place for design in the world.

Perhaps not “dumbing down” but design should be more relatable, or that designers should be more approachable, sensitive and culturally aware of the issues facing the world. As Papanek says ‘Why do we work directly for cigarette companies…but almost never for cancer clinics?’ Perhaps the issue lies in the personality and mindset of the designer? Optimistically I think the ethical issue was more prevalent in the 1970s than it is today, or at least designers make more of an effort to pretend that they care through their designs.

This could actually be quite relevant to my essay direction idea. The thought that people reacted to design when it became too much of an art form. The article was written in the 70’s, which is the birth age of punk as a rebellion movement, and from which the lo-fi culture in music is born, hhmmm.

Your sentences ending and then starting a paragraph are contradictory (on purpose?):

“If everyone is equipped to the designer way of thinking, what is stopping people from doing so?”

and then…

“This might be more of an issue in 1975, there are increasing amount of young adults who are self taught in design.”

Well exactly, people have been producing design/art work. It just took a while for technology to catch up with the innovative minds that did go it alone and produce their own work. It is now just too easy to do so (software and tech all relatively accessible etc).

The contention is is whether it’s now gone too far – loss of culture for professional graphic design AND the communities of artists who work hard on their self produced content.

When everyone is special, no one is. And perhaps that is the same in terms of the messages people could have communicated as well. Perhaps people could have turned the voice of design to more ethical issues themselves, but have now been drowned out by all the noise, consumer made or commercial.

A useful quote on the discussion of whether design has become too inaccessible to viewers. Maybe, it’s not so much that as designers wrongly apply too much theory into what they produce, especially with semiotics:

“In assuming that there is such a thing as a definitive meaning that can be discerned by knowledgeable analysts, semiology neglects the engagement between media content and users. It is assumed that the connotations identified by the semiotitian are definitive and, hence, liable to be received by audiences. Yet, research suggests that the range of different audience interpretations and responses to media texts can be considerable – something that has lead to suggest that there is no such thing as a fixed or pre-existing meaning and that meaning is produced only in the interaction of a text with its audience.” (Morley, 1992)
Page 69 of “Media, Culture & Society, an Introduction”, Paul Hodkinson

Victor Papanek has similar ideas with the articles of the other designers/theorists in the Manifesto discourse. I couldn’t find a certain information about that but I assume he is Marxist. He criticizes the concept of “beauty”, which is created by an upperclass culture.

I really liked the term “cultural design” that you used in your entry Abi, for me (and my incoming research paper) that’s the focal point of the Manifesto discourse for now. As Jeff also mentioned, he is probably not underappreciating graphic design but standing against the hip, cool, snob attitude of the most designers who are not culturally aware of the social issues and live in their little worlds of self-appreciation. “Design is further and further removed from people and the real world and it seems that ‘they up there’ are out of touch with ‘us down there'” he says in his article Edugraphology.

Debates of the elitist art can last forever, but I think when we take “design” into account, a design approach which is totally disconnected with the public can not be approved. Papanek criticizes the dynamics of design education, but I don’t agree with Rick Poynor who has a little introduction in the beginning of the article claiming that design is a basic human ability and designers conspire to keep nonprofessionals out. If design is such a powerful tool for communicating people and deriving public debate, how can the education of design be useless/needless? Papanek’s suggestion for the education issue seems much more consistent and logical for me; bringing students into direct and continuous contact with real people’s real needs in a real world. That kind of interaction would be a win-win relationship (I don’t know if this “win-win” term sounds like a businessman, it’s not only concrete benefits but also improve the students socially and helps them with ethical contradictions).

Not sure if Poynor was claiming that anyone could do graphic design, maybe he was just saying that most people subconsciously understand semiotic application in things? Like, they know when something is supposed to be spooky or romantic etc etc?